McCafferty, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 1650 (20 December 2023)

McCafferty, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 1650 (20 December 2023)

The convictions are not unsafe as the judge's directions remedied any prejudice from inadmissible evidence, the jury's verdicts were logically consistent with the evidence and directions, the cross-admissibility directions were proper and included necessary warnings, and there was no cumulative effect of errors rendering the convictions unsafe.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Crim 1650
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant: Michael McCafferty
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction After Refusal by Single Judge
Outcome
renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Appeals Against Conviction, Jury Directions, Hearsay Evidence, Bad Character Evidence, Cross Admissibility, Logical Inconsistency of Verdicts
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Appeals Against Conviction Jury Directions Hearsay Evidence Bad Character Evidence Cross Admissibility Logical Inconsistency of Verdicts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Michael McCafferty

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction After Refusal by Single Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inadmissible hearsay/bad character evidence rendered the trial unfair and convictions unsafe
  2. 2 Whether jury verdicts were logically inconsistent and thus unsafe
  3. 3 Whether the judge's directions on cross-admissibility were erroneous and rendered convictions unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions are not unsafe as the judge's directions remedied any prejudice from inadmissible evidence, the jury's verdicts were logically consistent with the evidence and directions, the cross-admissibility directions were proper and included necessary warnings, and there was no cumulative effect of errors rendering the convictions unsafe.

Court Disposition

renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused